The Tribunal restored appeals dismissed for non-prosecution, citing pandemic-related disruption and sufficient cause. It directed fresh adjudication while imposing costs on the assessee.
The case involved penalty for failure to respond to statutory notices during assessment. The Tribunal reduced the penalty after both parties agreed on a lower amount to resolve the dispute.
The issue involved denial of exemption for failure to attach audited accounts with Form 10B. The Tribunal held such lapse to be procedural and directed reconsideration, emphasizing that substantive compliance cannot be denied for technical defects.
The issue involved denial of LTCG exemption based on allegations of penny stock manipulation. The Tribunal held that without direct evidence or nexus, such additions cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal found inconsistency between payment date and share allotment date, raising doubts about the transaction. It held that these factual issues require verification. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the AO wrongly taxed an investment in an incorrect assessment year. Evidence showed the purchase occurred earlier than the year under consideration. The decision highlights the importance of correct year-wise taxation.
The ITAT Indore held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot survive where the assessment is completed under Section 143(3) after considering the taxpayer’s delayed submissions, as such compliance effectively condones earlier defaults.
The Tribunal ruled that a bona fide technical mistake in selecting the wrong section code while applying for registration cannot lead to rejection of the application. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Exemption) for reconsideration on merits.
ITAT Indore held that stamp duty valuation cannot be adopted without considering Section 50C(2)/(3). The matter was remanded for DVO reference and fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that the revised ₹25 lakh exemption limit for leave encashment under Section 10(10AA) must be considered and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for recomputation. The decision emphasizes applying the enhanced limit even for earlier assessment years where judicial precedents support the claim.
